2016-09-04, 17:39 (This post was last modified: 2018-02-25, 13:04 by Max Martin Richter.
Edit Reason: Fixed values for 284 as worked out in the thread. Fixed material of 186 to Metal.
)

Hi Folks,

I want to render parts for a huge amount of models. Therefore I scanned over a lot of available part lists form TLG and came across some colors, where I couldn't find an equivalent in LDconfig.ldr. Is there any chance that we can add the missing colors, so that we can render parts whith these colors?
I found the ID which is used by TLG and the official names for the color. I also have some RGB values if this would help, but these are not official ones and may be wrong.

just out of interest (I was on the committee trying to harmonize all the LDraw, LEGO, BL, names and numbers and it gave me a very hard time) where do these numbers and names come from? Did you match them against:

just out of interest (I was on the committee trying to harmonize all the LDraw, LEGO, BL, names and numbers and it gave me a very hard time) where do these numbers and names come from? Did you match them against:

I think I found the right guy for my request . These numbers and names are not matched against the mentioned tables. The reason for this is, that I wanted to use the official ids and names from TLG for my purpose. I know that there are a lot of different names and IDs out there and I also used some of them, but I'm trying to use only the official TLG data.
To do this I scanned over a huge amount of part lists directly from the LEGO page. With this I was not able to get the ids of the colors, but short names like "TR.L.BLUE" (Transparent Light Blue). Therefore the names I picked are only good guesses. To match these short names against the lego IDs I was able to use one of the "pick a brick" pages to tell me the secret of the corresponding ids.
Whith this method I was able to get a list from Id 0 to Id 999 for all colors. I filtered out all ids which aren't used in any of the part lists and the mentioned colors in my initial post are the ones, which I couldn't map to the ldraw colors.

If it will help, I can give you the complete list with all the ids and names, which I've got.
From all color tables I've found, this was the most reliable information which I found so far.

(2016-09-05, 9:28)Sven v. Beuningen Wrote: These numbers and names are not matched against the mentioned tables. The reason for this is, that I wanted to use the official ids and names from TLG for my purpose. I know that there are a lot of different names and IDs out there and I also used some of them, but I'm trying to use only the official TLG data.

When we updated the color table seven years ago one of the most debated topics was if we should switch to the official TLG data and overwrite our color numbers and names or not. The final approach was to stick to our legacy an keep backwards compatible (you surely know that we had already defined tons of colors before LEGO started sharing its shadow colors back in 2003) and use the LEGO data only for those colors which were not part of the LDConfig file.

(2016-09-05, 9:28)Sven v. Beuningen Wrote:
To do this I scanned over a huge amount of part lists directly from the LEGO page. With this I was not able to get the ids of the colors, but short names like "TR.L.BLUE" (Transparent Light Blue). Therefore the names I picked are only good guesses. To match these short names against the lego IDs I was able to use one of the "pick a brick" pages to tell me the secret of the corresponding ids.
Whith this method I was able to get a list from Id 0 to Id 999 for all colors. I filtered out all ids which aren't used in any of the part lists and the mentioned colors in my initial post are the ones, which I couldn't map to the ldraw colors.

Please consider Scott's post, who was also on board of the color committee:

It would make no sense adding colors which might have no matching color in real life. If you find colors which are actually missing in the LDConfig but cannot be found in a set I'm happy to add them to the chart.

it's perfectly fine to stick with the color definitions which we currently have. Especially for backward compatibility. I just have the problem, that I wasn't able to find mappings from the official TLG IDs to ldraw color IDs (http://www.ldraw.org/article/547.html) for some colors.

Maybe some of my findings are also covered in the ldraw overview, but I wasn't able to match them to ldraw IDs. So I could need some help here. In addition I think that some colors are not covered at all. Therefore I hope that we can add them.

again I'm happy to add those colors, but you have to show more evidence, that these colors are actually missing. In short the workload is on you ;-) I therefore propose that you take one color from your list at the time, crosscheck it with the tables mentioned above and post links to LEGO, BL, Brickset, your own pics, ... in short all available sources. We'll see if we can get the RGBs for the shadow colors from the LEGO Community Team once the colors are confirmed.

In this case only rebrickable does provide some useful information. I'm perfectly fine with using Ldraw color 80 (Silver Metallic), but it would be cool to have an official mapping inside ldraw config if this also fits for you.

I can provide these kind of information for the other colors aswell, if you like to proceed like this.

You picked an interesting example, Sven. My personal opinion is that the connection in ldconfig.ldr between lego id 179 and ldraw code 135 is not correct. IMO, the best tool for comparing lego colours is found at Swooshable. Use the excellent tool Colourschemer for visual help.
All the pictures have been made by Ryan Howerter and is also used at Brickset.

Both colours, lego id 179 Silver flip/flop and lego id 296 Cool silver, were only in production for a year each, 2002 and 2006 and they have been replaced by lego id 131 Silver and lego id 315 Silver metallic. Ryan H. has also put together a timeline of all colours.

I haven't looked at the rest of your list of missing colour, but we are missing one colour, lego id 300 Copper, Drum lacq, in ldconfig.ldr.
Could we please have that one added to ldconfig.ldr?

btw.
Please don't misstake lego id 315 Silver metallic with ldraw code 80 Silver metallic. The ldraw Metallic colour codes should only be used in printed patterns and painted parts. Scratch the surface and the paint will go away.

You picked an interesting example, Sven. My personal opinion is that the connection in ldconfig.ldr between lego id 179 and ldraw code 135 is not correct.

Every time the LDraw and LEGO color number does not match it's a clear indicator that we already had a LDraw legacy color and based on the RGB and other information picked a LEGO color. Sometimes sources where not clear and it was all about a guessing game. What we also had in mind was an AFOL approach rather than a LEGO one. This means that if there was a BL name available we would favour the BL name. Therefore "Maersk Blue" over "Pastel Blue". Keep also in mind that we are working with "shadow colors". The RGBs LEGO provides are the ones used on there systems to represent a brick color and does NOT match 100% the real ABS color.

Back to "296 Cool Silver". Apparently BL also uses "Pearl Light Grey" and what about 179 and 135. Proposals - and please use a very practical approach?

You picked an interesting example, Sven. My personal opinion is that the connection in ldconfig.ldr between lego id 179 and ldraw code 135 is not correct.

Every time the LDraw and LEGO color number does not match it's a clear indicator that we already had a LDraw legacy color and based on the RGB and other information picked a LEGO color. Sometimes sources where not clear and it was all about a guessing game. What we also had in mind was an AFOL approach rather than a LEGO one. This means that if there was a BL name available we would favour the BL name. Therefore "Maersk Blue" over "Pastel Blue". Keep also in mind that we are working with "shadow colors". The RGBs LEGO provides are the ones used on there systems to represent a brick color and does NOT match 100% the real ABS color.

Back to "296 Cool Silver". Apparently BL also uses "Pearl Light Grey" and what about 179 and 135. Proposals - and please use a very practical approach?

w.

Hi Willy,

what about keeping the mapping for LEGO color 179 to Ldraw 135 for backwards compatibility reasons. In addition we could introduce a new color for 296 Cool silver? If we do it this way we can clearly distinguish the colors. At least from their IDs. If the optical difference is near zero, we could map LEGO color 296 also to Ldraw 135. But we need the information from someone who owns parts in both colors.
Therefore I suggest:

If you look at parts images here http://brickset.com/colours/family-Metal you see that there is probably more color discrepancy between parts that are supposed to be the same color than between these three different color bins. So I'm OK to map them to the same LDraw color, and use RGB of metallic silver (current color) - though "RGB" here means little!!!

(2016-09-15, 11:54)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: If you look at parts images here http://brickset.com/colours/family-Metal you see that there is probably more color discrepancy between parts that are supposed to be the same color than between these three different color bins. So I'm OK to map them to the same LDraw color, and use RGB of metallic silver (current color) - though "RGB" here means little!!!

Good overview. From my point of view our three canditates look very similar. Because these are photos, the lighting conditions could be different when the photos where taken.
The other ones from the link are easier to distinguish.

Finding the "correct" colour isn't allways that easy, and maybe it sometimes isn't that important to have the correct shade of grey...
But I agree. We seem to be missing some important, common colours.

Finding the "correct" colour isn't allways that easy, and maybe it sometimes isn't that important to have the correct shade of grey...
But I agree. We seem to be missing some important, common colours.

Hi Magnus,

thank you for the link to the very good article. I also agree, that it is not always important to have the exact right color. I just want to come to an official mapping from the used LEGO colors to ldraw colors. So that I'm able to render the parts. It's also fine if several LEGO colors share the same Ldraw color.

(2016-09-14, 18:45)Max Martin Richter Wrote: Sorry for popping into this discussion, but a colour for Rubber Green also missing.

/Max

Hi Max,

do you have a clue or something about lego id or name? Maybe a part where it is used would help to identify the LEGO color. If we could identify it, I'll add it to the list.

So Long

Sven

I don't know too much about LDraw colors, but I think rubber green is the same story as rubber black. On inventory sites such as Rebrickable and Bricklink, rubber parts in black (often tires) just get assigned the color 'Black', because it is black. In the LDraw world, there are 2 blacks though: normal black and rubber black. Because, in real life, rubber parts in black look less 'deep black', they look more grayish (because of the material rubber) and more matte. So, when you give rubber parts the color rubber black, they look more 'realistic' in renderings and such.

I can't find a comparison, but you can easily make one yourself I think

(2016-09-14, 18:45)Max Martin Richter Wrote: Sorry for popping into this discussion, but a colour for Rubber Green also missing.

/Max

Hi Max,

do you have a clue or something about lego id or name? Maybe a part where it is used would help to identify the LEGO color. If we could identify it, I'll add it to the list.

So Long

Sven

I had an email correspondence with Philo couple of months ago, but somehow we never found a result in this question.
Rubber green is used in the CodePilot of Set 8479 and in the Mindstorms RCX controller...

Once again, not a lot of information available. The Name and and the Lego ID is fine I think. Unfortunately we've two different RGB Values from Rebrickable and Swooshable.
Because I didn't found any mapping I think it's a not yet covered color in ldraw. Does someone has more information on that?

Yes this makes sense. Using the same RGB as Trans_light_blue is also fine, because it is the same with the other glitter colors. Only the Edge value differs.
Because 302 seems to be free as Ldraw id, should we simply use it?

(2016-09-19, 7:18)Sven v. Beuningen Wrote: Yes this makes sense. Using the same RGB as Trans_light_blue is also fine, because it is the same with the other glitter colors. Only the Edge value differs.
Because 302 seems to be free as Ldraw id, should we simply use it?

(2016-09-21, 19:35)Sven v. Beuningen Wrote: I think this guy is similar to our green glitter friend. 339 is free as ldraw id and it also should be similar to Trans_neon_green (Ldraw 42) just with glitter.

No a lot of information available for this fellow. Also two slightly different RGB values. At least the name should fit to ldraw scheme (Trans_light_green). The ldraw id 285 is also available for a new entry.

The Picture is from LEGO Parts and Pieces. I assume they did a more or less accurate rendering. Also from the name it does make sense that it is greenish. I wonder why the other sources list this color somhow reddish.

I think this fellow is simple. Three sources list the same RGB #8E5597, so we should take it. 218 is free as ldraw ID, so we also can take this. As Ldraw name, we could take Medium Violet. If this is ok, only the edge color is missing.

(2016-10-11, 18:50)Willy Tschager Wrote: I would love if you could help me out on this since I do not have any intention to get creative.

I could do that if I would understand how to. I tried to recreate the edge colour from the examples above and failed.
Light colours should have darker edges, and darker colours have lighter edges. Right?

You said above "brightness is reduced by 25%". There is a big difference between "reduce by 25 percent" and "reduce by 25 percentage points"

Could you show me an online tool that could be used. I don't have Photoshop.

What do you mean by "creative"? Are you telling me there is no ruling idea behind the alternative edge colours?

(2016-10-16, 11:05)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: I could do that if I would understand how to. I tried to recreate the edge colour from the examples above and failed.
Light colours should have darker edges, and darker colours have lighter edges. Right?

You said above "brightness is reduced by 25%". There is a big difference between "reduce by 25 percent" and "reduce by 25 percentage points"

Could you show me an online tool that could be used. I don't have Photoshop.

Insert a hex and if B says for example 76 move B to 51 to get your edge color.

(2016-10-16, 11:05)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: What do you mean by "creative"? Are you telling me there is no ruling idea behind the alternative edge colours?

Don't ask me, I haven't worked on the alternative LDConfig. My guessing is that some values have been copied form the old LDConfig, while the criteria for the rest was, well, taste. Therefore your first step should be working out some rules for you. If I remember correctly we used a brighter edge line for the LDconfig.ldr on the dark colors when B droped below 33%.

I'm fine with the name. As for the RGB I'd go with swooshable. Measuring the color in PS I get values close to #FBE890(since it is a transparent part it is hard to figure out what is the gray background and what is overlay). As for the edge use #baab6a

(2016-10-12, 6:20)Willy Tschager Wrote: I'm fine with the name. As for the RGB I'd go with swooshable. Measuring the color in PS I get values close to #FBE890(since it is a transparent part it is hard to figure out what is the gray background and what is overlay). As for the edge use #baab6a

(2016-10-12, 6:20)Willy Tschager Wrote: I'm fine with the name. As for the RGB I'd go with swooshable. Measuring the color in PS I get values close to #FBE890(since it is a transparent part it is hard to figure out what is the gray background and what is overlay). As for the edge use #baab6a

While we are working on LDConfig.ldr, I'd like to see RGB value of main color (16) to be changed to something more "visible" than current gray, which is very easy to confuse with Light Gray or LBG. See this discussion for more details... I suggest to use #ffff80, a color I use for years as default color for LDView.

(2016-10-13, 18:48)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: While we are working on LDConfig.ldr, I'd like to see RGB value of main color (16) to be changed to something more "visible" than current gray, which is very easy to confuse with Light Gray or LBG. See this discussion for more details... I suggest to use #ffff80, a color I use for years as default color for LDView.

Other opinions/suggestions?

This means, that I need to change my background from white to another colour too. :-)

(2016-10-13, 18:48)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: While we are working on LDConfig.ldr, I'd like to see RGB value of main color (16) to be changed to something more "visible" than current gray, which is very easy to confuse with Light Gray or LBG. See this discussion for more details... I suggest to use #ffff80, a color I use for years as default color for LDView.

Other opinions/suggestions?

It's close to Bright_Light_Yellow but I think being similar to Light_Gray is much worse. I'm fine with it.

Quote:It's close to Bright_Light_Yellow but I think being similar to Light_Gray is much worse. I'm fine with it.

It's indeed difficult to choose a color not close of an existing one in LEGO palette - just need to find one not as ubiquitous as LG/LBG!

We shouldn't be too fast to change this color, it seems to trigger issues with some software - albeit not major ones:
- LDPE does show the modified color in the color bar, but a part in main color remain gray
- In LDCad, unused space in color wheel takes the color of main color and becomes yellow.

It seems that there only exists one piece in this color. Unfortunately there is no image of any part in this color by TLG . The only color information we have is from swooshable. The good thing is, that 295 is available as ldraw id. If we decide to use the swooshable color. Should we take "Bright Pink" as name?

(2016-10-18, 15:42)Sven v. Beuningen Wrote: It seems that there only exists one piece in this color. Unfortunately there is no image of any part in this color by TLG . The only color information we have is from swooshable. The good thing is, that 295 is available as ldraw id. If we decide to use the swooshable color. Should we take "Bright Pink" as name?

(2016-10-18, 15:42)Sven v. Beuningen Wrote: It seems that there only exists one piece in this color. Unfortunately there is no image of any part in this color by TLG . The only color information we have is from swooshable. The good thing is, that 295 is available as ldraw id. If we decide to use the swooshable color. Should we take "Bright Pink" as name?

We might have a conflict here, because Rebrickable mentioned 110 as Ldraw ID whis is "Bright bluish violet". I also have 110 as Lego ID Bright bluish violet, so maybe 219 is something similar, but at least from TLG point of view different.

(2016-10-24, 19:00)Willy Tschager Wrote: The main problem is that we have a total mismatch between Lilac, Pink, Violet and Purple, but it cannot be solved without breaking the links to BL. I would therefore go with BLs "Medium Violet"

w.

May I asked why it would be a big issue to break/rework the links with BL if we could clean up stuff?

(2016-10-24, 19:00)Willy Tschager Wrote: The main problem is that we have a total mismatch between Lilac, Pink, Violet and Purple, but it cannot be solved without breaking the links to BL. I would therefore go with BLs "Medium Violet"

w.

May I asked why it would be a big issue to break/rework the links with BL if we could clean up stuff?

So Long

Sven

Because many use the LDraw System of Tools to prototype and the resulting parts list as shopping list for BL. It wouldn't make much sense to clean up stuff for the sake that we know the fan created charts are wrong and we know better.

I think this is quiet a challenge. We have a free Ldraw ID, but a mismatch with the names. Rebrickable points out "Metallic Silver (Ldraw 80)" , but this is already taken by (LEGO ID 315 "Silver Metallic").We could create a new color or map LEGO ID 336 also to LDraw ID 80.

Here we have another transparent piece. It's a rare color and only a few information available. 293 is a free ldraw id. The Royal Blue colors are mapped to different ldraw names (Blue_violet, Light_blue), therefore we can't simply adopt the name. Because it is a "light" color we could go with "Trans_Light_Blue". At least from my point of view it would fit. For RGB values we have swooshable and rebrickable as different options.

Well, here we go. As far as I know, this color does only exists in one single part. The good thing is, that the Ldraw ID 227 is free. Unfortunately we have three RGB values to choose from. Rebrickable already maps this color to Ldraw 35 (Trans Bright Green). Ldraw 35 is at the same time Lego ID 311 (Transparent Light green) which does fit better from my point of view.
So it's open for discussion how to deal with this one.

[quote pid='23761' dateline='1478633447']
Well, here we go. As far as I know, this color does only exists in one single part. The good thing is, that the Ldraw ID 227 is free. Unfortunately we have three RGB values to choose from. Rebrickable already maps this color to Ldraw 35 (Trans Bright Green). Ldraw 35 is at the same time Lego ID 311 (Transparent Light green) which does fit better from my point of view.
So it's open for discussion how to deal with this one.
[/quote]

According to the time table this is out of production and personally I would map it to LDraw 35 Trans Bright Green.

(2016-11-10, 14:17)Willy Tschager Wrote: [quote pid='23761' dateline='1478633447']
Well, here we go. As far as I know, this color does only exists in one single part. The good thing is, that the Ldraw ID 227 is free. Unfortunately we have three RGB values to choose from. Rebrickable already maps this color to Ldraw 35 (Trans Bright Green). Ldraw 35 is at the same time Lego ID 311 (Transparent Light green) which does fit better from my point of view.
So it's open for discussion how to deal with this one.

According to the time table this is out of production and personally I would map it to LDraw 35 Trans Bright Green.

Here we've some information available. We have a free LDraw ID and some hints where could map it, if we want to. From my point of view the "Eath Orange" is a little bit to orangish. At least from the lego picture and the one from swooshable. I think it should be more brownish. If we want to map it to an existing color I would prefer "Dark Orange". Or we just create a new color.

Here's a new challenge. Only sparse information available. LDraw ID is free. I think the information from rebrickable is somehow wrong. I know for sure that "COPPER, DR.LA." is Lego ID 300. Therefore I wouldn't give much about the RGB value from Rebrickable. I would go with Swooshable. Also their Lego name does make more sense than mine. So I suggest to use LDraw ID 300 and for the name some speckle color. Speckle_Copper? But there is also a "Speckle_Black_Copper".

(2016-11-16, 19:07)Sven v. Beuningen Wrote: Here's a new challenge. Only sparse information available. LDraw ID is free. I think the information from rebrickable is somehow wrong. I know for sure that "COPPER, DR.LA." is Lego ID 300. Therefore I wouldn't give much about the RGB value from Rebrickable. I would go with Swooshable. Also their Lego name does make more sense than mine. So I suggest to use LDraw ID 300 and for the name some speckle color. Speckle_Copper? But there is also a "Speckle_Black_Copper".

So Long

Sven

No, it should be "Metallic_Copper". It's a metallic paint mainly used on patterned parts.
we already have
Lego Cool Silver Drum Laquer as LDraw Metallic_Silver
Lego Warm Gold Drum Laquer as LDraw Metallic_Gold

(2016-11-16, 19:07)Sven v. Beuningen Wrote: Here's a new challenge. Only sparse information available. LDraw ID is free. I think the information from rebrickable is somehow wrong. I know for sure that "COPPER, DR.LA." is Lego ID 300. Therefore I wouldn't give much about the RGB value from Rebrickable. I would go with Swooshable. Also their Lego name does make more sense than mine. So I suggest to use LDraw ID 300 and for the name some speckle color. Speckle_Copper? But there is also a "Speckle_Black_Copper".

So Long

Sven

No, it should be "Metallic_Copper". It's a metallic paint mainly used on patterned parts.
we already have
Lego Cool Silver Drum Laquer as LDraw Metallic_Silver
Lego Warm Gold Drum Laquer as LDraw Metallic_Gold

Here we have again a rare color. I could only find a few pieces with that color. The good thing is, that we have a free ldraw id. I think the name should be somehow Trans_Bright_Light_Orange, because we already have "Flame Yellowish Orange" which is "Bright_Light_Orange"

I think here we've a small conflict to solve. The Ldraw ID 335 is already taken by "Sand_Red" which is not goldish at all. At the same time we have "Metallic Gold" which is Ldraw 82 and LEGO id 310. LEGO ID 310 is "Titanium Metallic" which is also not very goldish (http://mi-od-live-s.legocdn.com/media/br...613958.jpg)

Option 1: Map Lego ID 335 to Ldraw 82Option 2: We use a new ldraw id and a new name. (I found 9 parts with this color)Option 3: Clean up the confusion in the related colors (unlikely).

(2016-12-19, 16:28)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: Based on the picture from Ryan H. I would say it ought to be like this:

334 should be mapped to new code 300 - Metallic_Copper
335 should be mapped to 82 - Metallic_Gold
336 should be mapped to 80 - Metallic_Silver

It looks to me as a "flat" metallic paint. Not a mirrorlike chrome plated surface.

I don't understand why Ryan has placed a Chrome_Gold crown and a Chrome_Silver lightsabre next to the three painted parts.
Maybe to illustrate the confusion? Two different surfaces on the same code?

That's because Lego has used "335 Gold Ink" to refer to both Chrome Gold and Metallic Gold coatings. From what I've seen, Gold Ink is sort of a catch-all for any gold coating now. Same with 336 Silver Ink.

Quote:How come the main (16) and edge (24) colours looks wrong in your pictures? I think there might be something wrong in your script.

I'll check... It's a by product of the mpd structure. Each brick position contains a brick in its own color, and a text in main color, allowing to have text in black for white background and white for black background. So "main color" brick inherits text color! I'll try to improve this...

Quote:How come the main (16) and edge (24) colours looks wrong in your pictures? I think there might be something wrong in your script.

I'll check... It's a by product of the mpd structure. Each brick position contains a brick in its own color, and a text in main color, allowing to have text in black for white background and white for black background. So "main color" brick inherits text color! I'll try to improve this...

Finally I let it as is: color 24 was not rendered correctly anyway. And 16/24 are not really colors...

This is a tough one. We kind of have an issue with the already existing ldraw id 63. It is stated that ldraw id belongs to LEGO id 147. And LEGO 147 is mentioned as "Metallic Bright Red". From my investigations I'm pretty sure that 147 should be Metallic Sand Yellow, which can also be found multiple times in the Ldraw color list "http://www.ldraw.org/article/547.html".
The good thing is, that 184 is still available as Ldraw ID. Therefore we could fix this.

(2017-12-14, 17:23)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: Could you please calc a correct colour for the edges? It's a transparent colour, and should have coloured edges.
I was never able to replicate the values you created.

Please use #82566E. The conversation is easy. Reduce the Brightness in a HSB room by 25%:

When (and why) did we switch to American English in this file? In appreciation of James' work we prefer Australian English. All my references indicate that the preferred Australian spelling is 'Grey'. Merriam-webster is American English.

Finally I think we're done. Thank you very much for the support. I still have about 60 unknown colors in the background, but they are all so called "Multicombination" colors and I think they are a little bit hard to track down.

(2017-06-06, 20:22)Merlijn Wissink Wrote: Does this color exist in LDraw? If not, would it even be necessary to add it?
Lego ID: 220
Lego Name: Light Lilac

Here's a tiny bit of information on Brickset.
It seems to be a pretty rare color.

The only thing I know is:

LEGO ID: 220
LEGO Name: Lgh. Lilac

I haven't found a single part which uses this color, but my check is from several month ago.

So Long

Sven

FWIW, 220 is generally a DUPLO or CLICKITS color, though (up to) two SYSTEM elements came in the color: Design 43802 (as shown on Brickset) and 33230 (I find Item references, but not necessarily sets that used the Item)